Breaks your heart doesnt it? This is the type of issue that gets us a bad name. I am not sure if you could have instructed him to do light duties but you could invite him in for a back to work discussion on what he can and can not do.

It sounds like you just don’t want to report this issue (possible RIDDOR). I’d agree with Freelance, this person is a PERSON who has every right to go and get proper professional advice (Doctor). In this case the advice was not to go to work??????

Good Point A Kurdziel!

I am in the opinion that it is not more a method to have good safety performance indicators in particular the LTI and severity than legal misunderstand.

Yes, What did happen to the 'Fit to Work' note? Sounds like a perfecctly reasonable approach you made and not one that has suggested the individual did not have a right to go to his doctor.

A lot of Doctors will sign you off for next to nothing these days! and most employees will take the opportunity if they can (even if they don't get paid!) just so they can put a claim in! We did an investigation into why our RIDDOR rate increased when accidents were going down. What we found was that people were taking time off for accidents which a few years they would of just carried on. Because there had been a lot going on in terms of pay deals etc people were and are a little bit disgruntled and will take any chance to get a little bit of money they can and get one over on the company.

Mr Fibble, how many doctors do you actually know? In relation to your post, let’s not assume that doctors do this (In the same way that health and safety professionals act in a certain manner??????????) That’s stereotyping I believe.

If the injured parry was unable to cary out the full range of his normal duties it would still have been reportable under RIDDOR anyway.

Can we confirm that the OP is saying that the employee was issued a med 3 with a ‘not fit for work’ notification? “A doctor will give a ‘maybe fit for work’ if they think that their patients health condition may allow them to work if they get support from their employer. If an employee is too ill to work the doctor will advise this just like the sick note.” Taken from the ACAS Guide. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/do...tnote-employer-guide.pdf If this is the case then the fact that the employer can offer modified work has likely not been discussed with the GP. If the discussion about modified work was held before the employee visited their GP then perhaps HR might like to speak with the employee. The questions that I see from this thread are nothing to do with RIDDOR reports. They are: What standards or guidance has been given to employees with regard to rehab possibilities? What expectation can employers reasonably have of their employees in respect of their honest discussion about the availability of rehab or amended work when discussing their health with their GP? and How many employers have reviewed their HR and H&S policies to reflect and support the new opportunities arising from the arrival of the ‘fit note’? There is now published evidence, in the recent DWP research report, that GP’s are far from clear or confident about their role in the management of fitness for work notes. Thus we should not be surprised that situations such as that described are occurring. See section 6 of this report. http://research.dwp.gov....rts2011-2012/rrep780.pdf There is also an interesting relevant article here: http://www.hrmagazine.co...cipd-simplyhealth-survey P48

I'm still struggling to see the point of the OP. In my opinion, from the information provided the ,not fit for work' note from th eGP is a red herring - this would still have been reportable anyway. The IP was offered altrernative work - from this, it could be assumed that they were not able to carry out their normal duties. Therfore, regardless of whether at work or not, it is reportable.

nickh, this question is posed in the OP. "what happened to the fit to work note". I read this as inviting debate about what impact or lack of it the fitness for work note has had. p48

This would still be reportable as an over 3 day injury if he had been in work on lighter duties as he wouldn't have been able to carry out his full range of duties for more than 3 days.

What was the injury? Who was at fault? Has the incident been investigated to find the reason for the injury Was the RA looked at? What did the method statement say? What has been put in place to make sure (AFAIRP) it will not happen again? The we can move on! Rob

Well said Jim

Alistair, that is puzzling but it would be unwise to make any further comment without a great deal more info. So may I just advise that the DWP guidance to GP’s is quite clear and unequivocal. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fitnote-gp-guide.pdf This is an extract from that guidance. Note in particular the imperative use of 'must' in respect of the functional effects of your condition. "Where the ‘may be fit for work’ box has been ticked, you must complete this section with information on the functional effects of your patient’s condition. The information you provide here will be key for your patient and for their employer when they are considering if and how they can facilitate a return to work. In circumstances where you feel the issues are complex or where you feel work itself may be a contributor to your patient’s condition, you may wish to include in your comments a recommendation that an occupational health assessment be considered." It is, of course, not for the Doctor with clinical responsibility for the patient to be job specific. There are examples in the guidance of how to outline the functional effects in the most helpful way. The guidance for Occ Health Professionals identifies the difficulties when it says "Recognising that the majority of the forms will be completed by GPs with little or no formal training in occupational health, the form is designed for general advice which does not require detailed knowledge of the patients work or of workplace fitness standards. The patient and their employer can then use this information to discuss how a return to work will be managed." Taken from http://www.dwp.gov.uk/do...ational-health-guide.pdf It is, of course, the employers responsibility to ensure that they review the notes and, if they accept them, then to control any matters arising from those functional effects. However, the notes are not binding on an employer who may choose to seek further advice or guidance whether that is suggested by the patients Doctor or not. It seems to me then that we all need to understand the importance of this process for our personal on-going health management. For example, I would not have accepted a med3 from my Doctor without adequate and relevant detail being provided. Remember the advice is to you as the patient and not to your employer. We surely have a individual responsibility to get the best advice to help primarily ourselves but also our employer when managing our return to work. For example, there can be many circumstances where describing the functional effects may require a check with the patients knowledge of the work and identifying their feelings or perceptions about returning to work and what may be relevant. Thus asking your opinion on what to put in can just be a valid part of any assessment. p48

I was not arguing the point of reporting, I interviewed the employee, and offered him light duties, as he did not want to loose money, I told him when he went to the doctors, ask the doctor for a fit to work note to see if you can do other work, as his hand is not in plaster, its not swollen.

paul-ps As others have already stated, the company cannot legally avoid reporting this under RIDDOR if the IP meets the > 3 day criteria, & is unable to carry out their substantive duties. The fact that they are in work on light duties, or just sitting around doing nothing does not mean that it is not reportable - some organisations did this prior to 1995 & that's why the legislation was changed! I did once hear of employees of one multi-national being picked up by taxis, brought into work to do nothing all day, & the same organisation had a sign at their entrance proudly proclaiming x thousand hours since the last reportable accident!! Zyggy

Hopefully the change from 3 day injury to 7 day injury should help with these kinds of issue?